If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And some were plantation owners you say, what lessons in morals and values can we learn from such men. :rolleyes:
Yes, that must be why each and every one of my arguments follows in accordance with examples from your replies. Quite a coincidence that would be…
Well, that would depend of which Crusades you’re speaking of. Some were an injustice; that’s definitely true. Yet some were justified and needed. Seeing how there were several Crusades, you might try to mix and mash the moral reasons behind certain ones.
Jihad is a “Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.” Infidel is someone who “doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.” This is, of course, the AH definition—open to theological speculation.
Yet, as I’ve said, we must keep in our minds the history of that bloody man: Muhammad.
True, and for that I am sorry. Yet we must take into account the events which took place. King James I of England, in signing the New England Charter, concluded the reason for the colonization of the Americas was “to advance the enlargement of the Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty.” This affected the world so much, as is obvious. The King’s proclaiming reason shook and has shaken the world ever since formation. Imagine a world without America; for some, it would be paradise… but to the logical… it would mean death to a true and righteous moral code of ethics. And of which the very foundation shakes! If the American people should fail… then there will be an even greater chaos than ever seen before.
What I may or may not believe matters not to the survival of the people. The people can only survive properly with a moral code of ethics. Now, if this is to be overturned and changed—then there will be no definition of morality. What is right is right—it matters not how many people disagree.
I agree.
Actually, you see, Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s was not detected until 1993 (more than four years after he had left office. (CBS News Information on Ronald Reagan))
I consider Charles Manson a criminal, and I consider Donald Blom a criminal. For the crime, you must pay the price proportioned to the crime. Of course, it’s men and women like you who would just as soon let a pedophile out of jail—only to molest again and again. There must be sound justice.
Of course, then we must take into account who tells us it’s “illegal.” The UN, again, which has failed. Yet who is the real police force of the world? I believe that to be the United States. Are the Russians so quick to ease the suffering of a people? Are the Swiss? The French? The Chinese? No. The U.S. goes out and actively tries to destroy the corruptions of evil dictatorships. I’d take the UN’s word worth less than a grain of salt… living in the flats.
You said: “The man has openly suggested that he hears the voice of God.
Voice in my head. We have mental health wards filled with such people.”
And for that I would assume not. If you are one so theologically interested in the Bible.. then I’d assume you would know figurative meanings. Heart strings, remember. As John Quincy Adams once said: “Search the scriptures!”
Yes, I realize that uranium is a dangerous substance. It’s used in the making of nuclear bombs, I know that. Yet I don’t think our government has the evil intent to poison the American people. I don’t think our government says “Aha! Uranium! Let’s murder our citizens!” Unlike Saddam Hussein, who purposely did.
Refer to the comment above, and the formation of NATO.
Four words: Dried brush, and heat.
First off, the major religion dominating the planet is Christianity. Also, our nation was founded upon the Christian morals and values (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States.)
Furthermore, there is no literal and legal separation of Church and State to the extent of which Liberalism pushes it. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” That means that Congress cannot create any religion of which it requires, by law, that the American people follow. This was the reason why men and women left Europe.
Let’s look at what Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, has to say about Christianity: “Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble... In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”
Well, that doesn’t tell me much bad about them. I believe the term “indentured servant” is known to you? Well, slavery stayed that way (duration of 7 years) until the South decided to make the duration life-long. THEN it was bad. Also, indentured servants became so by their own choice!
There have been many recent “legal” cases occurring in this nation. What you’ve said doesn’t prove “diddley squat”, save that some judges have a bit far-fetched imaginations. This nation was founded upon Christianity (review the quotes later listed.)
Here, why don’t you read it and tell us: United States Constitution
Also, it’s not simply what’s in the Constitution, but what it took to write the Constitution.
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage....Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”-James Madison (Architect of the U.S. Constitution & Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)
“The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above.”-Thomas Paine
“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.”-George Washington
“…it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes…”-George Washington’s Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789
“Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.”-Daniel Webster
“The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.”
and
“The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.”
Both are from Noah Webster’s History of the United States, which he published in 1832
You couldn't be more wrong. I don’t disappear so easily, my very ignorant fool. I’m not that easy to rid yourself of. Now, stop blathering, you churlish fool.
How VERY un-touchie/feelie of you, your attempt to deny him of what he does best...
Some poetic justice in the fact that those who were too stupid to use the ballot properly, were all presumed to have voted for... Al Gore.
You may find it offensive that GWB was elected by the laws of this nation, but... they are the laws we have chosen for ourselves. Get over it. You have John Fakir Kerry to support now, the one who conspired with the Viet Cong, while still an officer in the US Navy. The one who stood between the US and getting back our POW/MIA's from Vietnam, for more than 30 years. The one who based his "Winter Soldier Investigations" on the testimony of posers who had never served in the armed forces. The one whose "combat record" is that of the officer who commanded the Swift, before Kerry. The one who is a self-admitted "war criminal" for his summary execution of a wounded enemy POW, for which he received his "Silver Star", instead of a court martial, and prison. The one who received three bogus Purple Hearts, for which he missed a total of 2 days of duty, when the rest of us who were incountry had to be hospitalized for a MINIMUM of 48 hours to even be considered for a Purple Heart. The one who attended a meeting of his bogus VVAW, where the assassination of US Senators was the topic of discussion, WHILE HE WAS STILL AN OFFICER IN THE US NAVY, and never reported it.
You have a new champion to genuflect before, the lemon jello backed traitor, John Fakir Kerry.
So that comes from the bible right? I don’t follow any religious teachings in fact I am proud to be an atheist. I have chosen my own definition of morality and I don’t need no 2000 year old book or some person to tell me what is right and wrong[
But it may have been diagnosed then it does not mean that he was not suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's when he was President
http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/Facts_about_dementia/How_dementia_progresses/info_progression.htm
But they are problems with the death penalty. You would claim it is an eye for an eye but Gandhi makes the point that
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
Also they is a very good arguement to stop using the death penalty
"Capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society.
Opposition to the death penalty does not arise from misplaced sympathy for convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent, and any policy of state-authorized killings is immoral.
Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence.
The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. It is applied randomly at best and discriminatorily at worst. It is imposed disproportionately upon those whose victims are white, on offenders who are people of colour, and on those who are themselves poor and uneducated.
The defects in death-penalty laws, conceded by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, have not been appreciably altered by the shift from unfettered discretion to "guided discretion." These changes in death sentencing have proved to be largely cosmetic. They merely mask the impermissible arbitrariness of a process that results in an execution.
Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.
Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.
Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defence counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems.
A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems -- the worst possible example to s et for society. In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest or society. The bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory. "
This is a very good argument against the death penalty it is long but is worth a read.
http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html
What a load of crap the US have been quite happy to prop up or install dictators when it suits them.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/13/CIAtimeline.htm
The America society is fundamentaly based on freedom.
One of the major freedoms is the freedom to religion.
How can it possibly be considered correct to force Christian values upon people who have the right to be activly opposed to them?
And I'm pretty sure the high judges in America have a slightly more advanced understanding of the constitution than you, regardless of what you would like to think.
But even if this wasn't the case and America was a 'Christian state' then they have surely brought shame upon themselves and Christianity.
Taking, seemingly unjustified, military action despite the opposition of the pope and of the CoE heirarchy seems to not be the Christian thing to do.
You assume that because I don't like GWB I would support Keery.
Wrong.
Some solice to me (and to you I'm sure
One word: Photosynthesis
More people are not Christian...
Excellent. Were does the death penalty fit in with that?
Indeed correct MoK, but then the Christian Right in America has never let fact or truth hinder its skewed ideological view of the world.
Worldwide breakdown of religious affiliation
If I just can comment on something Melchiah has said:
I don't know what bizarre parallel world you live in, but please send us some invites so we can visit.
If you care to do a bit of research you might discover that the US has supported and assisted to power more evil dictatorships and brutal despots in the last 5 decades than any other country on earth. Go tell the victims of Pinochet's fascist dictatorship or the people boiled alive by President Karimov of Uzbekistan (or countless others throughout the world) what a champion of freedom and democracy the US government is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
"If one check bounceth, ye must turn the other check" Barclays 14:7
Sole gets banned, Lukesh leaves us... But now we have Melchiah, God is our King, said the Republican...
Clandestine is a yanker...
:eek2: :crazyeyes :eek: (Ffs)
Do you include the current one among then?
We should also keep in mind the peaceful man that Christ was. Someone who abhored violence, who preached that we should “turn the other cheek”, who disapproved of the church feathering it’s own nest.
Quite what he would make of evangalists, I’ll never know, but I would bet my life on his condemnation of them.
Over here we have an expression – “bollocks”.
Roughly translated, in this setting, I think it would be “horseshit”.
Yes, the UK and US share certain morals, but remember that these morals have developed over centuries and the US has only been in existence for just over 200 years. To suggest that there would be a sudden decline in morals as a result of the US disappearing is quite frankly ludicrous.
The main moral decline over the past 50 years has actually come about from US culture, rather than anywhere else.
No, what is right to one, may not be “right” to another. It really isn’t that black and white.
In this instance the man in position has a direct influence over the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee and yet he has an extreme view on this subject. Thus his advice is always going to come down to that. He will be unable to give a balanced perspective. That is dangerous in a govt agency.
By proportionate punishment, do you mean “eye for an eye”?
You said earlier, if it is right, it is right. The opposite of that argument would therefore be “if it is wrong, it is wrong”. So, if the state holds it wrong for a man to be killed, how can you that state justify killing a man?
Yes, because we believe that once justice is served, and a remedy has been paid then a man has paid their debt to society.
There is the potential that the person will offend again, just as there is with any crime, and I don’t hold with locking someone up purely to prevent them offending. That is a dangerous road to tread.
Also, as a Christian you would understand that justice will be served by God, ultimately. The punishments which we can offer here are puny in comparison to what that person will face for eternity.
The same UN which the US turned to in order to declare Iraqi action “illegal”? The same UN whose resolutions were used as justification for the invasion of Iraq?
You cannot use their name to defend your action, if you aren’t willing to defer to them when they say that you are wrong also. That is just hypocritical.
They cover us all, or they cover none.
When they want to. Not so eager when there is little in the way of natural resources to be found.
Wouldn’t argue with you on the issue of the Russian (whose murderous actions in Chechnya are supported by the US naturally) but the Swiss was a really bad example.
They may not carry the military power of the US, but they clean up the mess we all leave behind. Assuming of course that you support the Red Cross.
Then you should remember what has been said about assuming. Makes a ass of u and me.
Hearing God’s voice and claiming to act in His name are not the actions of a religious man. They are the actions of a fundamentalist.
Acting according to His teachings is religious. Having faith that He will deliver, if religion.
No, I was talking about depleted uranium. This is after it has been used for bomb making and when it is used as armour piercing shells casings. You need to look at what effect this has had on the Iraqi people - who we claim to be helping.
I’m not defending Saddam, or his use of WMD. But the use against his own people was actually related to the Iran/Iraq war, unless I am mistaken.
That is no difference to US usage.
and if they elect a fundamentalist Muslim regime?
What was the political make up of those courts?
To an extent and certainly with regards the chad.
I don’t blame them for the votes which were excluded/included for other reasons and that includes the votes of servicemen. I don’t blame them for those who were refuse votes.
The whole situation stank to high heaven a really called into question the whole “democracy” claim of the US.
I must agree with you on that one, thank you for the quote...
Thanks for showing that you, at least, pay attention!
Although he spelt it wrong...
Should have started with a "w" not a "y"...
Damn, jokes aren't so funny when you have to explain them, are they?
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/slavery/index.html
Slave-owners pure and simple.
There are great examples of Americans as there are in every country no doubt but these aren't the ones that i would look to for an example of morality.
Globe: Long time, no see. You sticking around or just vacationing from p/cp?
By God… “Vietnam Veterans Against The War” is your source… Now that is truly sad.
And here we have the sarcastic nuances of a decrepit-minded Liberal… as most often is the case.
Supporting one bad dictator to destroy an even worse one; that’s what it is, as was seen most clearly in Nam. Diem was a bad dictator, that’s true, yet Communism is a worse threat. And regarding Karimov and the Uzbekistani Islamic terrorist organization, well, the U.S. has had a rocky relationship with Karimov. It’s very hard to trust him (as seen with the year 2000 elections there.) James Rubin, U.S. Dpt. Spokesman, said the elections had not been “free and fair.” You see, the U.S. isn’t gung-ho with every dictator—we work slowly with them.
Actually, not a word of that comes from the Bible, yet the Bible does reflect upon it. And as for you choosing your own “definition of morality,” well, what have you to back it with? What you say is wrong is wrong? Or does it come from a perfect source… which, of course, would have perfect judgment. Humans, as you must know, are not perfect. Yet with the guidance of a perfect being, one must follow the course of perfect justice. It is when men begin to add things, that the corruption of government starts. The Bible may be old, but it’s morals are pure. Furthermore, if you don’t “need someone to yell you what’s right and what’s wrong,” then you must, invariably, be an anarchist too. The government tells you what’s right and what’s wrong, and the laws which built this nation were founded, clearly, upon the Christian values. Now, since you don’t need any 2000 year old book telling you etc., then of course you would hate the government. (assuming you live in the U.S.A.) Either that, or you’re one of the many who wishes to change the government to a Liberal form; which, in the end, would destroy this nation as our founding fathers had foreseen.
“The rights of the colonists as Christians… may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”-Sam Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772
I strongly doubt he was suffering from Alzheimer’s when he was President. You’re link proved nothing, save to be informational on Alzheimer’s, and I thank you for that.
And a murderer let free makes the whole world blind and crippled.
That would depend on what forms of execution you’re using. Gibbets, the rack, and drawn and quartering are all illegal—those are cruel and unusual. THOSE were commonplace in ancient civilization. The forms we have now and relatively clean.
Yes it does. And yes, that’s true about murder, yet state-authorized justice is always a good thing. To proportion an execution to brutal torture would be as if I were to claim Al Gore was a Nazi! Alright, let’s fly with the fact that murder is immoral. Murder is the unlawful, and immoral, killing of life. Now, what shall the payment be for such a debt? There used to be even worse payments (refer to the forms of torture listed above.) Now we have lethal injection—which isn’t painful at all, yet expensive. So, if you’re to execute someone cleanly and non-expensively, then you’d better hang them. Murder is abhorrent—justice is sound.
Actually, it doesn’t. Due process of law occurs at the moment of apprehension, trial, imprisonment, and execution.
I don’t give a damn. The murdered victim doesn’t get their life back, now do they? No, they don’t. So the murderer should be put to death. You take a life; you give your life. Yes, let’s sympathize with the murderer: “That’s okay, you raped and murdered that woman, but you’ll get out in ten years because we Liberals are pretty fucked up that we don’t care about her.” The Liberal smiles, caused by the drug-induced toxins in his brain giving him a euphoric high; he responds, “With these new laws, you can murder someone, and get out in say, ten or fifteen years.” He smiles, laughing for no apparent reason, “Of course, the dead woman won’t get her life back…”
“The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. It is applied randomly at best and discriminatorily at worst. It is imposed disproportionately upon those whose victims are white, on offenders who are people of colour, and on those who are themselves poor and uneducated.”
Actually, it doesn’t. The murderer is under protection while apprehended, during trial, etc. (as I’ve said before.) Of course, we must bring race into this… can you Liberals just forget about race and treat people equally?? Race, occasionally, at best, is a minor detail in the minority of executions. And no, execution is not random. If it were, then the police would pick normal people like you (hah) up on the street, say your murdered someone, and execute you… this must be, of course, what you would consider “random.”
Actually, the murderer gives that message. Execution gives this message “Obey the law… or else.”
Oh, now this is just priceless…
The “product of the environment” crap enters in now. Cry me a river. Who makes the final decision? The murderer does. Of course, it’s people like you who tell him “don’t worry… they’re your own set of ‘moral values,’ look at me… I made mine up.” And what would these “anti-crime measures that really work” be?
Then hang them. Rope doesn’t cost much, and all you’d have to do is find a tall tree. It’s very cheep and affectively so, quick execution. Of course, so does the trial beforehand to find whether the murderer is “guilty.” Would you like to cut those expenses too? “Reason for the solution of difficult social problems…” now that’s deep. You know, there was a time where, when a man cursed another man’s family name, the cursed would beat the living snot out of the other. Now, the cursed cries and calls “mommy.” This sickens me. Violence, sometimes, is the only way. Be a man
Yes, with Richard Wagner’s Grosser Festmarsch being played. I can picture this. There would be terribly acted weeping, and then there would be the front-row sitters who keep mumbling “he deserves it. He took my son’s life, now he will burn in the fires of hell for his iniquities!” Liberals way overplay executions. Liberals are the ones who dramatize everything. Actually, execution has been around for centuries, just this century, however, the form of civil executions has been introduced. I know, it’s hard for you to understand… but that’s spelt: c… i… v… i… l.
Read what I said before… wherever the heck it is.
Of course you can’t. After all, you’re not running.
By God, you still don’t get it. Now that is sad.
Photosynthesis is the process in which plants go through to change Co2 into Oxygen. I realize that. But do you realize that dried brush acts as kindling for over-heating? It’s quite a simple thing to understand. I don’t know how someone couldn’t understand it…
Actually, they are. You might try looking at that graph your Liberal friend, Clandestine, posted. (here it is again: World Religions)
Dang; you never cease to amaze me… in a bad way. The matter wasn’t dealing with the death penalty… the matter was America’s Christian heritage.
The Crusades were, invariably, against the Muslims. Yet this War on Terrorism is against terrorism. Last I heard, the majority of people in Iraq were Muslim… of which we’ve liberated.
Maybe the event in the temple never occurred to you… Jesus sure didn’t turn the other cheek there. And no, God’s son, God in the flesh, did not abhor violence… he abhorred violence without reason. Read the Old Testament.
Over here we also have an expression: Malarkey.
Translated, it means bullshit.
Actually, it’s come from God’s word: the Holy Bible. (You might want to check into it.)
Actually, it is. Without the guidance of a set right and wrong, then the world would be a mess… such like it is. We’re not little toddlers; we know there’s a difference between right and wrong… though that would be debatable for you.
Of course not, and what we need is not a balanced perspective… but a right one. What’s dangerous to the people is the degradation of morality in this world.
Yes.
Killing and Murder are different. Remember, it’s Thou shalt not Murder, not Thou Shalt not Kill.
No, because you’ve got some sick and twisted sympathy for these lunatics.
A pedophile should be kept under strict surveillance once he’s released. If he molests again, throw him in prison. We need harsher prisons nowadays. We need to “correct” these lunatics.
True, yet what we need are stricter laws… and more punishment; not less. We need rougher prison guards as well; one’s who will teach prisoners not to disobey again.
Yet I also know that God calls us to judge righteously the wicked, and to punish those which disobey the law.
Well, that would depend. In a way, they do; yet in another way, they don’t. They do in that they call themselves the police force of the world… yet they don’t work properly.
The same UN we “disobeyed”.
Ahhh… a tree-hugger. Fun. Alright then, natural resources. Hmmmm. Well, I’d have to disagree with you there. What is it with Liberals? They’re so obsessed with… oil.
The Red Cross; yes, of course… yet is Switzerland so eager to relieve the oppressed? No.
Read the previous verses I listed.
Well, that would depend on the amount of radiation involved.
Don't know... time will tell.
Someone here invited me to return...